I'm not sure who DW is. The idea of a reset can be carried out in many ways. Communism has only really been seen in an authoritarian form that was funded originally by Wall St. bankers. I personally think there is a reasonably high chance that what the world has seen of Communism was deliberately set up to fail and act as a pressure valve for people seeking to escape the corrupt enslavement system that has been running in 'The West' for so long. Since we now live in a world where many people automatically assume that any criticism of capitalism and money means that the commenter is a communist and a bad person - I'd say the tactic and conditioning appears to have worked for the operators of the global slave plantation.
"you can also not disown land that has been for centuries in family possetion and split it among the people"
Well, look at the Enclosures Act from Britain's history - which was in many ways the beginning of the system of land ownership that we call 'normal' today. They literally did the same you are saying cannot be done, except they took the land from many people and gave it to a very small number of people. It wasn't right - but it has already been done. The problem with not agreeing to some form of reset is that you are then automatically agreeing to the result of the massive crime that we have inherited and which continues.
Steem is built on principles of anarchy. Anarchy means 'no rulers' and I see that a world without rulers is necessary in order for us to be empowered and for us to have balance. So that solves the issue of power imbalance and government. The challenge then becomes how to live in balance, peacefully... Which is an issue of personal evolution and compassion primarily.
What if it’s nothing to do with capitalism versus collective collaboration... what if it has to do with how we find consensus and decide on the monetary policies and functions of the future. What if the answer is in re-writing democracy so that people can vote with capital (rather than individual single vote) on the things they care about. The things that individually matter to them. So rather than voting democratically for a corruptible human that says he is going to change the world as we know it... we vote for the items we want to change and then those are implemented by the people assigned to the task. Upon completion the funds are then automatically and in an itemized fashion distributed to the people who did the actual work. Perhaps the failings of our time has nothing to do with socialism versus capitalism... perhaps this is the signal that democracy in its current state needs to be upgraded to meet the demands and requirements of our times.
All forms of democracy are an overpowering and denial of free will. They are the majority (or in your case, the wealthiest) overpowering everyone else. This is not balance and is really just another form of tyranny, oppression and enslavement. The normalisation of this over time gives it an appearance of being 'fair' - but you only need to walk in the shoes of it's victims and study history to feel how this is not optimal.
Giving voting power to the most wealthy is an absurd solution to our problems to me - why do you think it is a good idea? Are you taking the position that those with the most money are somehow automatically the wisest? Isn't the entire purpose of the video here to show part of why that isn't true?
From my perspective, there cannot be peace without balance. Balance means 'no part or individual overpowering any other'. Achieving this means constant and felt awareness/understanding of each others real needs, such that they all get met. Many people don't even know their own real needs - let alone the needs of others. Having money is in no way a signal that you understand the real needs of others deeply enough to make decisions that intelligently effect them. The solution here requires a process that includes personal evolution and an increased awareness of the felt and intuitive signals that tell us when our thoughts and actions are balanced.
The 'ubuntu movement' has an interesting and ancient approach. I don't agree with 100% of their logic, but the idea is basically 'if it's not good for all then it's not good at all'. Some might interpret this to mean that there is a loss of individuation - but that's not really true - the principle is intended to ensure that nothing gets set in stone unless it truly works for every single being. If such great ideas are not found, then we keep learning until they are - remaining totally agile and able to shift to new options along the way. Change is a constant that is deliberately being withheld as much as possible by those who have stolen the most and with the least heart.
an anarchic system as opposed to democratic system would achieve the same tyrany, people would invest in things from their contributed income into things that they believe in...
for example:
if people choose to invest military aid to resolve a conflict half the people would invest in israel the other half in palestine ending up arming both sides causing the maximum amount of cassualties possible...
if people choose to invest in a bike lane, other people will tear down the bike lane for more car lanes.... public goods are not always for all which is a big debate in the US about the governmental healthcare system as people dont want to buy a health care system that they dont use (while they may be using it when they got old and will rely on young people paying into the healthcare system)...
the democratic process eliminates the waste of public goods funding as people make up their mind in what they invest it in based on majority... if i dont plan to have kids what good does investing in education do for me? in that sense ubuntu does not make sense... we cannot eliminate someone being overpowered as not every snowflake can have their own way the world works..
i agree the steem upvote system is flawed but thats one way of keeping people making multiple accounts to upvote their stuff... unless we want a surveilance currrency as china is currently building that requires ur ID...
The ubuntu principle would generally not involve investing in military offense of any kind, in my interpretation - since military offense is not good for everyone.
"the democratic process eliminates the waste of public goods funding as people make up their mind in what they invest it in based on majority"
that is quite a naive statement that is not based on the evidence. huge amounts of public money get wasted as a result of choices made via alleged democractic processes. in most countries the 'democracy' is a controlled facade by design that offers voters little in the way of real choice. no matter who you vote for you get roughly the same direction in policy when push comes to shove and some of that is due to bribery, some to blackmail and some to just incompetence and heartlessness. controlling the opinions of the majority is not that challenging if you control the information flows in the world and deliberately manipulate thinking to disempower people - which is exactly what has been done for a long time on an industrial scale.
"if i dont plan to have kids what good does investing in education do for me? in that sense ubuntu does not make sense"
you choose what you invest in - that's good for you and unless you happen to control most of the resources, it's not necessarily bad for anyone in principle. part of the problem people have with this kind of free thinking is that they are so used to being controlled that they can't see beyond the box of control and imagine that it is possible to live without being forced to do something they don't want to do.
"we cannot eliminate someone being overpowered as not every snowflake can have their own way the world works"
every act of overpowering has a cause - which can be understood and changes made so that the causes no longer exist. 'the world works' as we align to direct it to work - what evidence do you have that the world works a particular way and cannot change? do you deeply understand the causes of and mechanisms within what has been called 'the human condition'?
as far as ID oracles for steem goes - I don't see that happening soon, though I know that steemit inc has plans for it and Voice on EOS relies on a new form of it using multiple smartphones. I'm not for it.
what ever form of reset you are talking about it will involve land and money to be forcefully taken from one party to be redistributed... if it is done using a centralized power it will likely be an evil one as ruling systems are usually built on pyramids of powers satisfying the links below as no ruler can rule alone... i dont see why u insist on a reset of power when a social democracy (or what people in the US wrongly call "socialism") can make a system that favors minimal inequalities so anyone can live well easily while the rich get taxed harder (as AOC suggested up to 75% which would not discourage wealthier to earn more while being able to support from the tax income the population)... An economy of low interest rate and startup incubation centers wehre anyone with an idea can loan money cheaply and build a company (like in europe) where people can go for free to college (like in europe) with free healthcare (like in europe) with laws that protect the equality of people (european law) and taxes that hit the wealthy (not yet in europe but hopefully soon) would provide minimal inequality in the long run without having to forcefully ceasing the property of people...
DW is btw Deutsche Welle which is a big news outlet that does news in many languages but they also make documentaries. German news outlets are not as largely influenced by US war politics (though are not completely independent) and we dont kill our whistle blowers.
I am not suggesting for anything to be taken by force - however, I am pointing out that the current situation is one that was created by taking things by force originally.. So if we were to truly live out the principles of justice that governments tend to want to claim to be founded by, then we would include within that a process of redistribution that recognises the epic scale crime that has gone on for so long and which has been passed off as 'sound economic principles'.
If I steal your clothing from your back, you likely wouldn't be too bothered about using violence to take them back from me. What's the difference between that and using violence to reclaim land that has been stolen on a large scale using fraudulent economics? I personally am not advocating for violence here because I recognise that real peace has to come through voluntary action - but surely you must realise that simple logic shows that those with the most will always use it to try to stay in that position unless challenged by something more significant than tax that they can manipulate and get out of?
Who checks the tax payments? Who monitors what is just and what is not? It all requires some degree of centralisation. Why is centralised operation of high taxation rates less evil than centralised, forced redistribution of resources?
I live in Europe and I can assure you that the 'free' healthcare is ever more being privatised and in important ways has always been thoroughly corrupted by the empire building groups that will continue to exist with or without a government. There is nothing really 'free' in all of that anyway since it was all paid for by tax, which many people consider to be a form of theft.
Well, as far as dead German whistleblowers go - I'd say Dr. Udo Ulfkotte counts as one, though he was probably killed by the CIA!
i suppose a decentralized government could be possible and perhaps better, but it would be a difficult currency to make and such currency does not exist yet.
non of the crypto currencies so far are combined green (maybe provide at the same time digital infrastructure like storj or filecoin), horizontally expandable (like Etherium with their sharding technique so that the blockchain never gets too big for normal people to mine), it should have smart contracts (more advanced than steem) and people would need to be able to adjust what their tax spending would be while currating possible government projects...
it would be already amazing if there was a cryptocurrency that could give loans as a smart contract, but steems "minnowbooster" project is the closest thing i know to a smart loan.... loans of any size for anyone even if its a few dollars (micro finance banks are amazing for that reason)... banks are much greater evil and if we use a currency that could get them out of the equation would already be a great help...
until such currency exists i will be fine voting governments that support my social democratic, non military, and climate friendly values even when the parties i vote for dont make it into the parlament :/
"Ulfkotte, bereits seit mehreren Jahren gesundheitlich angeschlagen, starb am 13. Januar 2017 im Alter von 56 Jahren an einem Herzinfarkt"
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udo_Ulfkotte
Udo died after serveral years having health problems of a heart attack.
government is inherently the idea of majority rule over minorities - so no matter how much you attempt to decentralise it - it will still have an unbalanced form.
my main issue with cryptocurrencies is that without some kind of reset that levels the playing field, they just continue the old problems in a new form.
Personally, I don't advocate that anyone choose to be ruled by others - it's not healthy ;)
Ulfkotte was the only highly experienced media figure to have openly stated that he was being paid by the CIA for his whole career to lie to the world and also that he didn't know anyone in the mainstream media that wasn't also being paid to lie in the same way. It is no surprise to me that he died not long after. There was a public admittance as far ago as the 1960s that the CIA can cause heart attacks in people in an undetectable way. It is obviously possible that he had a heart attack anyway - but I would not rule out him being murdered too.
i agree most cryptocurrencies would give the same problems since its the most unregulated forms of capitalism... so im not sure if such transition is possible... and you dont need to vote for a change in currency, it may be enough to just not give value to cash... if a group of people can independently survive and grow their economy based on a currency the government cannot do anything about it and their money becomes worthless as it is only worth as much as the value we give it